Density

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Portland reminds me of LA in the 60s and 70s

I lived in Portland for 27 years and visit somewhat frequently. I have lived in Ls Angeles for 22 years.

No frackin' way. Not even close. Try again

[Sioux612]

Curio
PSU apartments
AC Hotel
Multnomah Court House
Temple Bldg block
James Beard project
Hotel next to the Ladd
Pearl Hotel high rise
The Dianne Pearl
Pearl Aparments high rise (sushiland block)
PNCA Goodman block high rise

There is a lot to look forward to and this list doesn't even include the Lloyd/Eastside/SoWa.

Btw, what is the lastest on the Curio? I thought for sure this would break ground before the AC hotel.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by rsbear

I lived in Portland for 27 years and visit somewhat frequently. I have lived in Ls Angeles for 22 years.

No frackin' way. Not even close. Try again

I was talking about the skyline being more spread outward and I dont think theres a reason to be so defensive?

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I was talking about the skyline being more spread outward and I dont think theres a reason to be so defensive?

Defensive. That's funny. Just like your original (now retroactively defined) claim.

[Sioux612]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

It won't be much changes from this view within 10 years. Maybe one more Cosmo level tower but the rest will be mainly stubby 12 story buildings if that..

The last 'tall' tower (over 325') before PAW was the Fox Tower - a 16 year gap.

Portland wont see tall towers until an HQ relocates here. If that ever happens.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Defensive. That's funny. Just like your original (now retroactively defined) claim.

there ya go-apparently you didnt pay attention to the tittle of the thread?

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by Sioux612

The last 'tall' tower (over 325') before PAW was the Fox Tower - a 16 year gap.

Portland wont see tall towers until an HQ relocates here. If that ever happens.

sad but true

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by Sioux612

The last 'tall' tower (over 325') before PAW was the Fox Tower - a 16 year gap.

Portland wont see tall towers until an HQ relocates here. If that ever happens.

Hence why I said that. We have the biggest boom in our local economy in years and we still can't muster anything above 32 stories

[soleri]

Originally Posted by Sioux612

The last 'tall' tower (over 325') before PAW was the Fox Tower - a 16 year gap.

Portland wont see tall towers until an HQ relocates here. If that ever happens.

This is true of virtually every American city, now. Banking is now national, so there are far fewer big local banks with much if any need for a trophy building. The national banks with regional headquarters tend keep day-to-day operations in backoffice locations where the rents are much cheaper. Law firms are no longer exploding in size, and in terms of office space, shrinking their footprints. As Portland shows, even national headquarters have the freedom to locate in places closer to the where the CEO might live. Cities are hot, of course, but the construction is usually for high-rise residential. Seattle is an exception thanks to Amazon and a very strong economy, but even there you see residential buildings and hotels outnumbering commercial office space high rises. Ditto San Francisco, New York, Miami, Denver, and Chicago.

Portland is doing very well given these national trends. One thing we don't always appreciate is how urban policy can translate to economic vibrancy. Portland's urban success means a downtown with low vacancy rates. There needs to be good transportation connectivity, of course, and it helps that the area has strong appeal overall. All roads lead to downtown, in effect. Hiring is easier in appealing locations. If you're a young "creative", would you rather be working in Tigard or the Pearl? The question answers itself in the same way if you asked that person where they would want to live.

I don't really care if Portland ever gets a new tallest. Indeed, I'd be much happier if those surface parking lots get filled in with good urban fabric buildings. One thing I hope to see in my lifetime - this is mostly fantasy - are all those parking garage behemoths eventually being razed for real urban usage. A great city weans itself from car travel. Bad cities, in contrast, cater to cars. One index to urban dysfunction is the number of people driving to work instead of taking transit. If it's over 50%, that city has issues.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by soleri

This is true of virtually every American city, now. Banking is now national, so there are far fewer big local banks with much if any need for a trophy building. The national banks with regional headquarters tend keep day-to-day operations in backoffice locations where the rents are much cheaper. Law firms are no longer exploding in size, and in terms of office space, shrinking their footprints. As Portland shows, even national headquarters have the freedom to locate in places closer to the where the CEO might live. Cities are hot, of course, but the construction is usually for high-rise residential. Seattle is an exception thanks to Amazon and a very strong economy, but even there you see residential buildings and hotels outnumbering commercial office space high rises. Ditto San Francisco, New York, Miami, Denver, and Chicago.

Portland is doing very well given these national trends. One thing we don't always appreciate is how urban policy can translate to economic vibrancy. Portland's urban success means a downtown with low vacancy rates. There needs to be good transportation connectivity, of course, and it helps that the area has strong appeal overall. All roads lead to downtown, in effect. Hiring is easier in appealing locations. If you're a young "creative", would you rather be working in Tigard or the Pearl? The question answers itself in the same way if you asked that person where they would want to live.

I don't really care if Portland ever gets a new tallest. Indeed, I'd be much happier if those surface parking lots get filled in with good urban fabric buildings. One thing I hope to see in my lifetime - this is mostly fantasy - are all those parking garage behemoths eventually being razed for real urban usage. A great city weans itself from car travel. Bad cities, in contrast, cater to cars. One index to urban dysfunction is the number of people driving to work instead of taking transit. If it's over 50%, that city has issues.

100% agreement with all of this. the last paragraph is platinum covered in gold, then rolled in diamonds. nice.

[soleri]

This article could appear in the Economy sub-forum, but it seems a bit closer to the density discussion, at least for Portland. If the legislature successfully tackles the inclusionary zoning issue next year, it might become an even hotter topic. I tend to think the overall issues are complicated by preservationists and quality-of-life advocates. That said, it's ammunition for another debate.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...tes-inequality

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by soleri

This article could appear in the Economy sub-forum, but it seems a bit closer to the density discussion, at least for Portland. If the legislature successfully tackles the inclusionary zoning issue next year, it might become an even hotter topic. I tend to think the overall issues are complicated by preservationists and quality-of-life advocates. That said, it's ammunition for another debate.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...tes-inequality

This is definitely a tough topic because everyone is always in favor of less zoning restrictions in other neighborhoods except for their own. I am also against things llike rent controls because when a rent control is set, landlords then set the rents at the maximum they can set it at. Though I do support cities giving incentives for lower rents. I also like incentives given for preserving older buildings.

[robocop]

Curious to hear opinions on this piece...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbe.../#1547bf3c1c07

[Rob Nob]

They are comparing the entire City limits of Portland to a similar size bite of Houston that is centered around their down town?
So Portland City limits includes large swaths that are just the Airport, Shipping Terminals, the Columbia River, Willamette River, Ross Island, Oaks Bottom, Smith and Bybee Wetlands, Delta Park, Forest Park, Washington Park, Tryon Creek Park, Powell and Kelly Butte Park? Pretty low housing density there!
Obviously most of Houston's sprawl occurs outside of the 610 loop. This is an apples to oranges comparison. It's pretty ridiculous, though I do agree Portland could relax height limits and Design Review.

[Rob Nob]

http://util.io/compare-maps

[innovativethinking]

From the author:

"Houston, with its large gleaming skyscrapers and overt street-level multiculturalism, almost makes Portland feel like a cow town."

Lmao

[robocop]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

They are comparing the entire City limits of Portland to a similar size bite of Houston that is centered around their down town?
So Portland City limits includes large swaths that are just the Airport, Shipping Terminals, the Columbia River, Willamette River, Ross Island, Oaks Bottom, Smith and Bybee Wetlands, Delta Park, Forest Park, Washington Park, Tryon Creek Park, Powell and Kelly Butte Park? Pretty low housing density there!
Obviously most of Houston's sprawl occurs outside of the 610 loop. This is an apples to oranges comparison. It's pretty ridiculous, though I do agree Portland could relax height limits and Design Review.

Wholly agree. This particular author, Scott Beyer, has written a couple of pieces on Portland that read like a jilted lover.

He suggests that Houston and Portland "started in the same place" post WW2, which bypasses the fact that 1950 Houston was roughly the same size as modern day Portland (~600,000). Let us not forget, as well, that during the depression, Houston was dubbed "the city the depression forgot." Houston's oil economy surpasses anything Portland can bring to the table.

The author begins the essay mentioning how Portland is seen as the urban planning darling while Houston is dragged across the coals within those same circles -- adding that this perspective is wrong because he "recently lived in both places," and has seen both with his own eyes, which by dictionary terms does make him an expert.

The problem is that after setting up a "Houston is out-urban-planning Portland" thesis, his arguments have little to do with urban planning, and center mostly around the very obvious fact that central Houston is denser than the entirety of Portland, and that Houston has the 4th largest skyline in the United States.

His closer "So which metro area--Houston or Portland--is doing urban density better?" reads as if that was the original argument he set forth, which it's not.

As the years go by Portland will become increasingly dense. The narrow streets, parks, and neighborhood atmosphere will remain intact. Just because 2017 Portland isn't as dense as City X or City Y does not mean that current urban planning/growth policies are a failure.

[maccoinnich]

In the author's last article about Portland he claimed that the UGB made housing in Portland so expensive that people were choosing to live in Corvallis and commute here. This is such a common thing, he claimed, that 15% of the residents of Benton County commute to the Portland metro area. It was such a ridiculous claim that I looked into the census data, and found that a grand total of 771 people commute from Benton County to the four county Portland metro area; or around 2% of the workers in the county aged 16 or over.

Clearly he's someone with a preconceived notion about the role of government, and is writing articles to support that belief. The trouble, as Rob Nob points out above, is that it takes some real twisting of the data to get there.

As a further example: take the image captioned "a photo of Portland's underwhelming downtown skyline". It's certainly true that Portland's skyline isn't one of the world's most impressive, but that photo is taken from an angle that hides the Fox Tower and Park Avenue West, while really minimizing the apparent height of Wells Fargo, Pacwest and KOIN. Furthermore, the area in the foreground is actually zoned for buildings of up to 460', so it doesn't even support his thesis that it's big government holding Portland's growth back.

And lastly: I'll take this streetscape over this this streetscape any day.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

In the author's last article about Portland he claimed that the UGB made housing in Portland so expensive that people were choosing to live in Corvallis and commute here. This is such a common thing, he claimed, that 15% of the residents of Benton County commute to the Portland metro area. It was such a ridiculous claim that I looked into the census data, and found that a grand total of 771 people commute from Benton County to the four county Portland metro area; or around 2% of the workers in the county aged 16 or over.

Clearly he's someone with a preconceived notion about the role of government, and is writing articles to support that belief. The trouble, as Rob Nob points out above, is that it takes some real twisting of the data to get there.

As a further example: take the image captioned "a photo of Portland's underwhelming downtown skyline". It's certainly true that Portland's skyline isn't one of the world's most impressive, but that photo is taken from an angle that hides the Fox Tower and Park Avenue West, while really minimizing the apparent height of Wells Fargo, Pacwest and KOIN. Furthermore, the area in the foreground is actually zoned for buildings of up to 460', so it doesn't even support his thesis that it's big government holding Portland's growth back.

And lastly: I'll take this streetscape over this this streetscape any day.

A couple things to add to this, I would rather have people living in small surrounding towns with countryside separating the towns from the metro than having all that countryside be eaten up by sprawling suburbs. Our current system promotes a healthy metro, healthy countryside, and healthy small towns.

As for the two street views, the second one reminds me of the Lloyd District to some extent, which I always joke that if Portland were more like any other American city, the Lloyd District would actually be what we called downtown because we would have bulldozed all those historic buildings and redone the street grid to support super blocks to support the need for more parking. I would much rather take Portland over that.